At 2/3/2010 5:47:28 AM, GodSands wrote:If you goo to the religion forum section and scroll right back to the first forum post called 'atheism' created by scissorhands7, you will find out that our theology has not changed.

At 2/3/2010 5:47:28 AM, GodSands wrote:If you goo to the religion forum section and scroll right back to the first forum post called 'atheism' created by scissorhands7, you will find out that our theology has not changed.

And your point is...?

He is Faithful (ie; unreasonable) in the face of argument.

"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."

At 2/3/2010 5:47:28 AM, GodSands wrote:If you goo to the religion forum section and scroll right back to the first forum post called 'atheism' created by scissorhands7, you will find out that our theology has not changed.

And your point is...?

He is Faithful (ie; unreasonable) in the face of argument.

Well, i already know that, even if he didnt point me to that specific topic.

At 2/3/2010 5:47:28 AM, GodSands wrote:If you goo to the religion forum section and scroll right back to the first forum post called 'atheism' created by scissorhands7, you will find out that our theology has not changed.

And your point is...?

He is Faithful (ie; unreasonable) in the face of argument.

Does there need to be a reason to believe in God and does there need to be a reason not to? If there is a reason for either side or view to be belived in, the opposite side will also have a reason to be believed in. If one side or view has no reason to be believed in to opposite side will not have a reason. The question is no whether it has a reason, but which reason is reasonable.

At 2/3/2010 8:13:21 AM, GodSands wrote:Does there need to be a reason to believe in God

Yes

and does there need to be a reason not to?

No.

If there is a reason for either side or view to be belived in, the opposite side will also have a reason to be believed in. If one side or view has no reason to be believed in to opposite side will not have a reason. The question is no whether it has a reason, but which reason is reasonable.

And so far, the reason to believe in god is the most reasonable of the two reasons.

At 2/3/2010 8:13:21 AM, GodSands wrote:Does there need to be a reason to believe in God

Yes

and does there need to be a reason not to?

No.

If there is a reason for either side or view to be belived in, the opposite side will also have a reason to be believed in. If one side or view has no reason to be believed in to opposite side will not have a reason. The question is no whether it has a reason, but which reason is reasonable.

And so far, the reason to believe in god is the most reasonable of the two reasons.

At 2/3/2010 8:13:21 AM, GodSands wrote:Does there need to be a reason to believe in God

Yes

and does there need to be a reason not to?

No.

If there is a reason for either side or view to be belived in, the opposite side will also have a reason to be believed in. If one side or view has no reason to be believed in to opposite side will not have a reason. The question is no whether it has a reason, but which reason is reasonable.

And so far, the reason to believe in god is the most reasonable of the two reasons.

At 2/3/2010 8:13:21 AM, GodSands wrote:Does there need to be a reason to believe in God

Yes

and does there need to be a reason not to?

No.

If there is a reason for either side or view to be belived in, the opposite side will also have a reason to be believed in. If one side or view has no reason to be believed in to opposite side will not have a reason. The question is no whether it has a reason, but which reason is reasonable.

And so far, the reason to believe in god is the most reasonable of the two reasons.

What is your reason for not believing in God?

There is insufficient evidence to warrant a belief.

So thats your reason, so why so no you should of have said yes. There is a reason that you do not believe in God and there is a reason why people believe in God.

At 2/3/2010 8:13:21 AM, GodSands wrote:Does there need to be a reason to believe in God

Yes

and does there need to be a reason not to?

No.

If there is a reason for either side or view to be belived in, the opposite side will also have a reason to be believed in. If one side or view has no reason to be believed in to opposite side will not have a reason. The question is no whether it has a reason, but which reason is reasonable.

And so far, the reason to believe in god is the most reasonable of the two reasons.

What is your reason for not believing in God?

There is insufficient evidence to warrant a belief.

So thats your reason, so why so no you should of have said yes. There is a reason that you do not believe in God and there is a reason why people believe in God.

Although the English language should send you a letter, what is your reason to believe in God? And why should i have said Yes? I said there is insufficient evidence to warrant a belief, which, in other words, means that there is no reason to believe that God exists.

At 2/3/2010 8:13:21 AM, GodSands wrote:Does there need to be a reason to believe in God

Yes

and does there need to be a reason not to?

No.

If there is a reason for either side or view to be belived in, the opposite side will also have a reason to be believed in. If one side or view has no reason to be believed in to opposite side will not have a reason. The question is no whether it has a reason, but which reason is reasonable.

And so far, the reason to believe in god is the most reasonable of the two reasons.

What is your reason for not believing in God?

There is insufficient evidence to warrant a belief.

So thats your reason, so why so no you should of have said yes. There is a reason that you do not believe in God and there is a reason why people believe in God.

Although the English language should send you a letter, what is your reason to believe in God? And why should i have said Yes? I said there is insufficient evidence to warrant a belief, which, in other words, means that there is no reason to believe that God exists.

But there is no evidence which denies God existence, so like you I can say there is no reason to not believe in God.

At 2/3/2010 8:13:21 AM, GodSands wrote:Does there need to be a reason to believe in God

Yes

and does there need to be a reason not to?

No.

If there is a reason for either side or view to be belived in, the opposite side will also have a reason to be believed in. If one side or view has no reason to be believed in to opposite side will not have a reason. The question is no whether it has a reason, but which reason is reasonable.

And so far, the reason to believe in god is the most reasonable of the two reasons.

What is your reason for not believing in God?

There is insufficient evidence to warrant a belief.

So thats your reason, so why so no you should of have said yes. There is a reason that you do not believe in God and there is a reason why people believe in God.

Although the English language should send you a letter, what is your reason to believe in God? And why should i have said Yes? I said there is insufficient evidence to warrant a belief, which, in other words, means that there is no reason to believe that God exists.

But there is no evidence which denies God existence, so like you I can say there is no reason to not believe in God.

At 2/3/2010 5:47:28 AM, GodSands wrote:If you goo to the religion forum section and scroll right back to the first forum post called 'atheism' created by scissorhands7, you will find out that our theology has not changed.

Your theology is the result of 2000 years of change, and it is inconsistent even with your fellow Christians.

I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.

At 2/3/2010 8:13:21 AM, GodSands wrote:Does there need to be a reason to believe in God

Yes

and does there need to be a reason not to?

No.

If there is a reason for either side or view to be belived in, the opposite side will also have a reason to be believed in. If one side or view has no reason to be believed in to opposite side will not have a reason. The question is no whether it has a reason, but which reason is reasonable.

And so far, the reason to believe in god is the most reasonable of the two reasons.

What is your reason for not believing in God?

There is insufficient evidence to warrant a belief.

So thats your reason, so why so no you should of have said yes. There is a reason that you do not believe in God and there is a reason why people believe in God.

Although the English language should send you a letter, what is your reason to believe in God? And why should i have said Yes? I said there is insufficient evidence to warrant a belief, which, in other words, means that there is no reason to believe that God exists.

But there is no evidence which denies God existence, so like you I can say there is no reason to not believe in God.

I have an invisible pet dragon in my backyard.

Do you believe, or disbelieve my claim?

I build my belief in God from the universe and where it came from, a invisible pet dragon is rediculous, there is nothing on why the dragon exists, there is no need for your dragon. If you get into that reasoning anything could exist, however since you believe in evolution...maybe not a invisible dragon (yet the word dragon is the old term for dinosaur) but a creature that is mythical may exist.

My belief in God is not unnecessary, it is sufficient to where the universe came from, and the whole reason God created the universe was to express His love through Christ.

At 2/3/2010 12:47:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:GodSands, I reject ALL celestial dictators whether they exist or not.

if they exist or not? this must mean your rejection in celestial dictators is best in ethor case. In the case that they do not exist, then your rejection is a little pointless.

But in the case that the celestial dictator does exist, is it really wise to reject him (her,it I dont care) if this celestial dictator is your superoir in most (or all) senses.?For example, if it were a simple fact that I, Murader, had to be your supieor by the very nature of what I am (that is not fact though) then shouldnt you accept me and listen to all that I tell you. Though it would take humility (and thats not fun) to admit a better being was talking to you, but you would none the less benifit from listening to it.

One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

I dont know what Godsands is going to say, but consider this about Haiti.

Haiti has been starving for some time now. most experts associate this with the increase market in ethanol, making certain food supplies being bought up for car fuel (or some other device that uses that fuel). with the increase in demand for that food it became scarce in countries like Haiti for the natural use for food, eating it. yet despite all the riots being shown on the news occuring in Haiti over there food shortage, not much response was made on helping these people for our country.

All of sudden they have an Earthquake (a very damageing one) and now they are getting compassionit response out of the U.S.A, and from what I gather other countries too.

Now if I knew everything, then I would have known that these people wernt going to get help from a disaster as complicated and boring as economics, but they would get it for a disaster as fantastic and shocking as an Earthquake. And If I knew that and had the power to change witch disaster they were suffering from, It's not to hard to see why I would use that power.

Scars help us connect with each other in empathy and all that good stuff. When youve never experance pain you could never comfort a person with a shark bite wound with words like 'I understand your pain' or 'I've been through that too'.

I'm sure they are a lot people out there who can do a better job at explaining the blessings of suffering, and if your dissatesfied with mine, try some other's that go deeper into the concept. you will likely be able to find it a teaching of multiple spirtuallities, (not just christian).

One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

Ok Godsands, lets say your God gave us free will, so things like 9/11, Wars, etc. are human fault. That just leaves him responsible for the big things, say, the Haiti earthquake, volcano eruptions, hurricanes etc.

Thoughts?

There are two types of evil, sin which is human evil and natural evil. Human evil is sourced by by Satan's lies, and Satan's lies were brought in through Adam.

Natural evil is the result of mans sin, God created the universe for Him but He created it for us to enjoy for Him. However now we have sinned that joy and pleasure which was once is now been taken away. Perfection is now an abstract concept, even on the most seemingly perfect day, there is something which could be improved whether you can think out that something or not.

Natural evil in other words a punishment for sin which entered the world, not are individual sin but the fact that there is sin. When thousands die because of an earthquake for example it is a reflection of orginal sin, if there is original sin but no natural evil, why would there be natural evil? I am not saying we sin because there is natural evil, but there is natural evil because we sin.

Thought by Augustine, natural evil is caused by demonic forces which have entered into the world by Satan's lie which Eve was deceived by and Adam stood by. For Satan has come to kill, steal and destroy. And therefore all evil, including natural disasters are morally evil against God.

God is not responsible for any evil, God created all things but is evil a 'thing'? It is more of a product of a thing, natural evil is a continuation of events that causes humans to see destruction of which it affects their own lives. Like a kick in the back, a nudge to accept Christ. God after all created the universe to express His love through Christ. However God chose to do so, and God if did not created the universe no one would exist.

Ok Godsands, lets say your God gave us free will, so things like 9/11, Wars, etc. are human fault. That just leaves him responsible for the big things, say, the Haiti earthquake, volcano eruptions, hurricanes etc.

Thoughts?

There are two types of evil, sin which is human evil and natural evil. Human evil is sourced by by Satan's lies, and Satan's lies were brought in through Adam.

Natural evil is the result of mans sin, God created the universe for Him but He created it for us to enjoy for Him. However now we have sinned that joy and pleasure which was once is now been taken away. Perfection is now an abstract concept, even on the most seemingly perfect day, there is something which could be improved whether you can think out that something or not.

Natural evil in other words a punishment for sin which entered the world, not are individual sin but the fact that there is sin. When thousands die because of an earthquake for example it is a reflection of orginal sin, if there is original sin but no natural evil, why would there be natural evil? I am not saying we sin because there is natural evil, but there is natural evil because we sin.

Thought by Augustine, natural evil is caused by demonic forces which have entered into the world by Satan's lie which Eve was deceived by and Adam stood by. For Satan has come to kill, steal and destroy. And therefore all evil, including natural disasters are morally evil against God.

God is not responsible for any evil, God created all things but is evil a 'thing'? It is more of a product of a thing, natural evil is a continuation of events that causes humans to see destruction of which it affects their own lives. Like a kick in the back, a nudge to accept Christ. God after all created the universe to express His love through Christ. However God chose to do so, and God if did not created the universe no one would exist.

So you're saying Satan can come into this world and does things like earthquakes? Seems worth worshipping if it would make him stop.

Ok Godsands, lets say your God gave us free will, so things like 9/11, Wars, etc. are human fault. That just leaves him responsible for the big things, say, the Haiti earthquake, volcano eruptions, hurricanes etc.

Thoughts?

There are two types of evil, sin which is human evil and natural evil. Human evil is sourced by by Satan's lies, and Satan's lies were brought in through Adam.

Natural evil is the result of mans sin, God created the universe for Him but He created it for us to enjoy for Him. However now we have sinned that joy and pleasure which was once is now been taken away. Perfection is now an abstract concept, even on the most seemingly perfect day, there is something which could be improved whether you can think out that something or not.

Natural evil in other words a punishment for sin which entered the world, not are individual sin but the fact that there is sin. When thousands die because of an earthquake for example it is a reflection of orginal sin, if there is original sin but no natural evil, why would there be natural evil? I am not saying we sin because there is natural evil, but there is natural evil because we sin.

Thought by Augustine, natural evil is caused by demonic forces which have entered into the world by Satan's lie which Eve was deceived by and Adam stood by. For Satan has come to kill, steal and destroy. And therefore all evil, including natural disasters are morally evil against God.

God is not responsible for any evil, God created all things but is evil a 'thing'? It is more of a product of a thing, natural evil is a continuation of events that causes humans to see destruction of which it affects their own lives. Like a kick in the back, a nudge to accept Christ. God after all created the universe to express His love through Christ. However God chose to do so, and God if did not created the universe no one would exist.

So you're saying Satan can come into this world and does things like earthquakes? Seems worth worshipping if it would make him stop.

That in a way, but not so much, Satan does not do every natural evil by going from place to place but He or Adam caused natural evil because sin entered into the world. Natural evil is only evil because it wasn't there before Adam brought sin into the world, and God did not create natural evil, the moving of a tectonic plate is not generally thought as evil but the moving of a tectonic plate when it causes death arises many questions. The destruction of God's universe is evil, so as I would that the motion of tectonic plates is evil, despite if it harms anyone, you would it is not evil unless it does harm anyone.

Like orginal sin, things that do harm others you anyways find evil, if it does not harm anyone in anyway you will not classify it as evil, such as sex before marrage etc... However I see all sin or all actions that pleases the flesh as evil, such as drunkenness and what have you. The same applies in natural evil, the same principle is applied as I explained above.

I've got five questions here for you to answer. Try to do it as intellectually honest as poss... haha, who am I kidding? Okay.

1. Where does it show in the Bible that the Earth is not 4.6 Billion years old, or that it is in fact only 6000 years old?

2. What portion of your belief in God tells you to not accept science as any way plausible?

3. How does the Bible or God show you that evolution is impossible?

4. Where does it say in the Scriptures that any area in the New World (meaning the Americans, Australia/Indonesia, etc.) exists, and if it doesn't, how can Scripture be credible on any geological or geographic issues?

That in a way, but not so much, Satan does not do every natural evil by going from place to place but He or Adam caused natural evil because sin entered into the world. Natural evil is only evil because it wasn't there before Adam brought sin into the world, and God did not create natural evil, the moving of a tectonic plate is not generally thought as evil but the moving of a tectonic plate when it causes death arises many questions. The destruction of God's universe is evil, so as I would that the motion of tectonic plates is evil, despite if it harms anyone, you would it is not evil unless it does harm anyone.

You claim God created the world, ergo he created tectonic plates which move, ergo he made these evil earthquakes.

Like orginal sin, things that do harm others you anyways find evil, if it does not harm anyone in anyway you will not classify it as evil, such as sex before marrage etc... However I see all sin or all actions that pleases the flesh as evil, such as drunkenness and what have you. The same applies in natural evil, the same principle is applied as I explained above.

At 2/3/2010 12:47:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:GodSands, I reject ALL celestial dictators whether they exist or not.

if they exist or not? this must mean your rejection in celestial dictators is best in ethor case. In the case that they do not exist, then your rejection is a little pointless.

But in the case that the celestial dictator does exist, is it really wise to reject him (her,it I dont care) if this celestial dictator is your superoir in most (or all) senses.?For example, if it were a simple fact that I, Murader, had to be your supieor by the very nature of what I am (that is not fact though) then shouldnt you accept me and listen to all that I tell you. Though it would take humility (and thats not fun) to admit a better being was talking to you, but you would none the less benifit from listening to it.

You mean, is it convenient to accept the celestial dictator. Of course. Is it wise or moral? No. One might be inclined not to reject him because of what will happen if they do.

Based on your logic, you think that the Jews ought to have accepted Hitler?

Plus, the idea of a God who thinks he is greater than us is self-refuting. It shows he is arrogant and not humble which would make the humble humans morally superior.

At 2/3/2010 12:47:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:GodSands, I reject ALL celestial dictators whether they exist or not.

if they exist or not? this must mean your rejection in celestial dictators is best in ethor case. In the case that they do not exist, then your rejection is a little pointless.

But in the case that the celestial dictator does exist, is it really wise to reject him (her,it I dont care) if this celestial dictator is your superoir in most (or all) senses.?For example, if it were a simple fact that I, Murader, had to be your supieor by the very nature of what I am (that is not fact though) then shouldnt you accept me and listen to all that I tell you. Though it would take humility (and thats not fun) to admit a better being was talking to you, but you would none the less benifit from listening to it.

You mean, is it convenient to accept the celestial dictator. Of course. Is it wise or moral? No. One might be inclined not to reject him because of what will happen if they do.

Based on your logic, you think that the Jews ought to have accepted Hitler?

Plus, the idea of a God who thinks he is greater than us is self-refuting. It shows he is arrogant and not humble which would make the humble humans morally superior.

If God, who is supposed to be infinitly knowing, infinitly wise, infinitly good, infinitly powerfull... then it would make him stupid to belive he is equall to us, not arrogent. For him to be arrogent in anyway it would requrie him to not be all-knowing because there would be something he does not know.The Jews should not accept Hitler by my logic because he is not there supperor. If there was anything you could say he was better than an average jew at, it would be miltary strategy, but thats it. I could try making the case like him that I am your ethnic superior, therfore you should accept me, but all my arguments for that would sound stupid because the positon is ridiculous.

But if there was anything to out there to accept as your better than something that is infinitly good, infinitly smart, infinitly capable, intinitly competent would be mathmatically your better in an undeniable way. for any room to justify not accepting him as your better is if in any of these ways the celestial dictator is not these things, but if he's not then he's not truely a god now is he? He's is much more like a mutant from ex-man. He would be like zeus who, if real, for all these reasons is not worth worshiping. He said we should not have fire, he is wrong. He sleeps with mortals all the time when he has a godess he can take to be.... the list go's on.

But the only God youll find Godsands or me talking about is the infinitly good, infinitly knowing, infinitly wise, powerfull, competent, and all-present God. Such a god is not one we would ever expect to be humble to us or ask. which is why we are amazed he would do something so demeaning as subject himself to a crucifextion all so we could be free from sin. That a being like that could love a being like us so much that they would go so far as to do that. Faced with that demonstration of humility I find that I must be humbled by it, for my love could not go that far.

Anyway, that might be a little too religous to care about, so let me end with saying infinet is mathmatically better than whatever number designates any aspect of what I am. So if something is infinit in all positive terms then it makes sense that that something is my superor.

One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.